Yahoo Buying Inktomi 194
soldack writes "Byte And Switch has a story about Yahoo buying Inktomi. I imagine they will stop using Google. What does this mean for both Google and Yahoo? How much of Google's traffic came from Yahoo? How much is going to come from AOL using Google?" markpapadakis adds a link to CNET's story on same.
interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:interesting (Score:2)
I would hazard a guess that what the poster meant by "true results" is that the results are the genuine output of a search engine, without the taint of paid inclusion.
Re:interesting (Score:2)
True results? What does that mean? ...[snip]
I think AC was trying to say that "true" results mean non-monetarily biased results. Of course, you can google-bomb your search phrase, and in fact there are many ways to artificially increase the pagerank. But pagerank != paidfor, which Inktomi definitely is. Google reserves the ads for the "paid advert" and "sponsored result" section, making it clearly seperate.
Short answer: There is no "true" result, but most people (including me) would take pagerank + obvious ads over paid inclusion.
Re:interesting (Score:2)
Re:well... (Score:2)
Sounds pretty crappy to me just on that point.
The web should be less money oriented and more people oriented. Let the people decide what is relevant to a particular search, and not a bunch of corporations directing your searches their way. Bullshit.
I'm Buying Beer (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'm Buying Beer (Score:5, Interesting)
Yahoo is one of Google's biggest customers--not only in the somewhat significant "hits" catagory, but the more important "licensing" catagory. Yahoo pays Google real cash--and this helps Google.
However, Yahoo is also one of Google's biggest customers. Eventually this was going to come to and end--and it just did IMO.
I'm sure many if not most of people looking to search will head to Google, but the Yahoo partnership was/is a boon for Google.
To me, Yahoo just called for a fight.
Re:I'm Buying Beer (Score:1)
So you're saying that Yahoo is one of Google's biggest customers?
no. you have me all wrong.
I was saying saying I'm a nitwit.
[explitive]
Yahoo's relevance (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yahoo's relevance (Score:1)
Yahoo still has a very strong community built around it, it may not be the best, the fastest or the prettiest, but it's where their friends are and have been for years now.
Re:Yahoo's relevance (Score:5, Insightful)
When Yahoo infused its front page with several hundred links it took a pummeling to the head. When it started charging to add businesses to its link directory it knocked itself out.
Re:Yahoo's relevance (Score:2, Funny)
Lately the only thing infused into yahoos front page is dancing shockwave ads!
Re:Yahoo's relevance (Score:2)
I left Yahoo! as my front page when a flock of javascript birds [turboads.com] flew down from the top banner ad to a side banner ad.
Since then it's been Google, and one of these days I'll slap together my own little portal with quick links for searching and news headlines.
Re: Yahoo's Flash ads (Score:2)
I'm shocked these days when I use a terminal that doesn't have Proxomitron filtering because then I realize just how crappy a place the web has become. I pity anyone who consumes the web raw.
Re: Yahoo's Flash ads (Score:1)
Re:Yahoo's relevance (Score:2)
Hats off to that mans sig
I sir, salute you.
Re:Yahoo's relevance (Score:2)
Yahoo free email (Score:2)
Re:Yahoo free email (Score:1)
Re:Yahoo free email (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yahoo's relevance (Score:2)
Re:Yahoo's relevance (Score:2)
When they started that ad campaign advertising, literally, "content", I knew they were heading for a fall. "Sign up for SBC-Yahoo and get exciting content, now!" Advertising using terminology that resonates with management and not the general public is a big sign that the company has totally lost touch. Bye-bye.
Re:Yahoo's relevance (Score:2)
And search results get shown whenever nothing is found in the directory that matches the user's search. In other words, anyone coming to Yahoo for the directory may stay for the search.
I know that my google-listed site gets about as much traffic from Yahoo-ed searches as it does directly from Google. Plus Yahoo shows 20 results per page, so more results are on the ever-important "first page".
I know I will be sorry to see Yahoo move to Inktomi.
Re:Yahoo's relevance (Score:2)
Re:Yahoo's relevance (Score:2)
For probably 80% of the stuff I search for, I'll get a different "top 10" result from MSN Search compared to google (and, of course, google's top 10 usually has the page I want). MSN Search makes nice thumbnails of the page, yes (and bloody useful that is on a 28.8 modem connection!), but invariably the first few pages of results will be junk.
Do MSN Searches include paid-for results or something? Or do they use an older index?
Well... (Score:2)
I haven't used anything but Google in a while...even got Searchling (search MacUpdate...or Google for it) to have Google search in my OS X menu bar.
If Yahoo stops using Google, I just won't have any reason to go there anymore. Google is the de facto standard now.
Re:Well... (Score:1)
So the time to stop using yahoo was some time ago, so you stopped then, but it's time to stop now? I'm confused. Who's supposed to stop doing what now?
So why are you using them now? Can't get enough banner ads?
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Yahoo I have continued to use for the "My Yahoo!" functionality, and while I was there, I could search for something and get Google results. If this goes to Inktomi, then I'll get my "My Yahoo" functionality elsewhere--like you say...to avoid the banner ads.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
I haven't used anything but Google in a while...even got Searchling (search MacUpdate...or Google for it) to have Google search in my OS X menu bar.
Lets see, you read this, then you stop using Yahoo! "awhile ago". Sound like you've been "Back to the Future!"
I use Yahoo! for Maps [yahoo.com], Stock Quotes [yahoo.com] and Games [yahoo.com]. Haven't searched for anything with it since '98.
okay ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Altavista made it big with babelfish (it's quite possibly the only translator I use). Google made it big with speed, pdf to html (plus pdf searches), cached pages, etc etc.
Seems to me yahoo is more of a "portal" loosely than a search engine anymore, but I can't remember the last time I heard anyone say "I found [insert whatever] on inktomi" at least not in the last 6 years.
My take, google will be fine, I can't begin to name the number of computers I see with google.com as their homepage (more than slashdot).
Inktomi results on HotBot (Score:1)
I can't remember the last time I heard anyone say "I found [insert whatever] on inktomi" at least not in the last 6 years.
Have you heard "found $foo on hotbot"? Until recently, when HotBot switched to a choice of four different engines, HotBot used Inktomi as its search engine. HotBot still offers Inktomi as its default search engine.
I can't begin to name the number of computers I see with google.com as their homepage (more than slashdot).
EarthLink Network gives its subscribers start.earthlink.net by default, which has a nice Google searchbox right in the middle of the page.
Inktomi isn't a database (really) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Inktomi isn't a database (really) (Score:2)
It may be possible Yahoo may just shut down the Inktomi Search Engine in a few years as contracts run out...
Re:okay ... (Score:2)
Easy. They compared their traffic from the Inktomi days with their current logs, and decided that the slight increase in traffic isn't worth the extra cost of their Google subscription. So they are selling the Rolls Royce and switching back to their Ford Pinto.
Yahoo knows that Google is better than Inktomi, but they've calculated that the extra traffic isn't justifying the extra bill.
Re:okay ... (Score:2)
This could be explained by a business change at Yahoo. It may be the case that Yahoo had previously structured their business model to outsource their searching, seeing it as secondary to the rest of their business. Now, they may want to bring search-engine software in-house, and they probably still have people working there who are familiar with Inktomi's tech.
Disclaimer: I used to work at Inktomi.
Re:homepage: Google+Slashdot. (Score:2)
Impact?? (Score:1)
Is anybody still using Yahoo then? In internet time Yahoo is almost a dinosaur, Google is the warm blooded animal that has almost overtaken the whole world.
An advice to Yahoo: do something!! Don't just sit there being a website with pretty links, that doesn't cut it anymore these days...
Re:Impact?? (Score:2)
I wonder what was the last time you looked at Yahoo!. It's my yellow pages, it's my newspaper, it's for online-games for my wife. And yes, for websearching I use Google.
The bizarre thing is (Score:1)
motivation? (Score:5, Interesting)
it'll be interesting to see if any overt enmity develops between these two stanford-born businesses....
Re:motivation? (Score:2)
People are oblivious to the feature creep right now because they see it as related to search, or just find the new services useful. It will become bloat when Google tries to be all things to all people. Google has that in its blood. Our honeymoon with Google will not last.
Re:motivation? (Score:2)
Moderate parent: Conspiracy Theory (Score:2)
Who cares of Google adds a few more tabs that I don't have to click on (but usually do). New features that you don't use aren't "bloat" when they're inconspicuous and harmless.
Their addition of AdWords and the Web Developer API shows that they're committed to adding new search-related technology, they're supporting the existing infrastructure, and the search GUI remains uncluttered. What more could we ask for?
The notion that "evil is growing" is no more applicable to Google than Fruit of the Loom [fruit.com].
Re:Moderate parent: Conspiracy Theory (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:motivation? (Score:2)
This statement might make sense if we'd already developed the Ultimate Search Technology(tm). The truth is that the current search technology is only a pale shadow of what future search technology will be.
Also, we haven't even developed the Ultimate Information Organization Technology(tm). So even the UST will have to constantly evolve to remain relevant to the constantly evolving information organization technology.
I imagine that the organizing and searching technologies will ultimately converge (any sufficiently advanced database will be indistinguishable from a perfect search engine). I also imagine that the first company to "leverage the synergy" of these two symbiotic technologies will become very poweful indeed. I imagine, finally, that most of Google's "feature creep" is actually the prototyping of more advanced information-organization and information-retrieval technologies. I don't think it's even a question of "more bells and whistles to keep ahead of the competion", so much as "developing the next-generation technology while our competitors are still trying to catch up with the current generation".
But these are all imaginings. Only Google really knows what it's doing. But considering how smart they've been so far, it doesn't seem reasonable to assume they're suddenly going to start being stupid, though.
Ashcroft seizes Google? (Score:2)
"Google has vowed not to do evil, but evildoers will do evil by exploiting Google. We must stop the evildoers by destroying their evil tool."
Re:motivation? (Score:2)
Froogle the first shopping engine I've seen in years that isn't trying to sell you anything. Sponors can pay for the right to show up as a side bar, but the first search result is going to be what Google found as the best match for your request.
Instead of creating communities of its own, Google bought out DejaNews's database and has provided a simple web interface for USENET's newsgroups.
They have a Yahoo like directory, but it's the Open Directory Project sorted by Google pageranks.
Google is slowly growing to be the size of Yahoo, but they're staying true to their orignal vision of simplicity and unintrusive ads, rather than feeling the pressures to do anything to keep the stock price up.
Re:motivation? (Score:2)
Re:motivation? Money? (Score:2)
A more likely reason is probably economical. Google *IS* top dog of the search engine world, and as such it may have been asking for more money than Yahoo was prepared to pay. Remember, Yahoo's main draw is not its web-wide search engine, but its highly moderated Web directory.
As such, it may make sense for them to make a one-off purchase of inktomi, and save themselves the cost of continual lisencing of Google's results.
Re:motivation? (Score:2)
Making search technologies that can intelligently solve much more complicated search problems (eg, finding pictures, finding shopping items, etc) is a far more complex problem with huge potential payouts as a technology.
The portal is just a convenient way to aggregate the public testing of their technologies..
Search Engine vs Portal (Score:1)
I think this ends up being just about as pointless as the relaunch of HotBot... which was pretty pointless. ;)
Re:Search Engine vs Portal (Score:2)
Especially with stuff like Froogle [google.com], Google Catalogs [google.com], and Google News [google.com] who needs the other search engines?
Yahoo switching to Inktomi will only decrease their traffic..
I use to like Yahoo. (Score:2)
Long live banner free Google!
This won't make Yahoo stop using Google (Score:5, Informative)
Not really (Score:2)
There are a number of ways in which "known good" listings can be combined with crawled sites using link ranking. One is simply to give the listed sites a high static ranking, putting them before any crawled sites in the search results. If the crawled sites are being supplied on a pay-per-search basis (such as when Google or Inktomi are supplying the "backfill" on a CPM basis), this approach can save a good deal of money, and it's simple enough for management to understand.
Another is to give the listed sites an artificially high pagerank, and allow it to percolate out to linked pages, thereby boosting not only listed homepages, but deeper links in the same site, and nearby linked pages as well. This method leverages the labor of human-ranking pages, yielding a large number of related pages which are probably also on-topic and of decent quality. Kleinberg proposed something similar when he designed the HITS algorithm, as a method of automatically populating web directory categories.
Ideas (Score:5, Informative)
Yahoo would be well-served building a cross-reference ranking from Google + Inktomi's results. Most of my searches are quite pointed anyway though, so I'm not sure how this could be improved.
Go try the Hotbot [hotbot.com] or MSN [msn.com] searches yerself. This may well be the future rankings on Yahoo results.
As a trial, I searched for "Oklahoma Dry Spell" and although there was one coinciding match in the top 2, the rest were completely different. It seems Inktomi is a bit more relaxed for inclusions. (14,888 vs Yahoo's 12,800).
For one of the myriad of search engine reviews comparing (roughly) Inktomi and Yahoo/Google, see this page [searchenginewatch.com]
mug
Re:Ideas (Score:2)
Re:Ideas (Score:2)
Well-served = becoming the search engine of choice, much as Google did by providing the most relevant, popular pages at lightning speed.
I understand that basically they are bringing their search engine back in-house, but for my two cents, it'd be better to keep using Google in there. Inktomi may add something besides page popularity (link-based such as Google) but who knows how precise their algorithms are alone. Test it yourself.
mug
Personally, I would rather know... (Score:2)
Until then, yes, I do "Yahoo".
Personally, I would rather not... (Score:2)
Google's strength has come from sticking to one thing and doing it well. Google does searches and does them better than anyone else. It's that sort of focus and simplicity that other companies lack. If Google started offering portal-like services such as email and chat I would definitely use them (because I know that the quality would be great); however, I rather hope that Google doesn't fall to the temptation of branching out and thus risks its strength.
Re:Personally, I would rather not... (Score:1)
Google loses ad revenue when people do not use Google; one way to make sure people use Google is to offer free services people need online, like instant messaging and email.
And yes, Google-based IM and Email would indeed be outstanding quality.
Re:Personally, I would rather not... (Score:2)
Yahoo have missed the point slightly. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you have missed the point slightly. (Score:2, Informative)
Secondly, as I understand it, Inktomi actually has 2 primary search engines. One is geared towards business use and the other towards consumers (which they got from a recent company they acquired). According to reports Yahoo is basically interested in the business search engine and not the consumer one.
Lastly, I don't see how Yahoo does not focus on users needs. I believe they offer a great suite of online applications, many of them being free. I would disagree if you believe that just because they engage in online advertising that they are not focusing on users.
Re:Yahoo have missed the point slightly. (Score:3, Informative)
They're called "sponsored links", but they're ads just the same.
In Google's defense, they're ads the way they *should* be done. Pure text. No popups. No annoying flash animations walking in from the side of the screen.
But they *are* ads.
Google is cool (Score:2)
I guess there have been companies that "get it" that failed... but that's usually due to some other dumb business practice.
Before Google.. (Score:1)
The crowd goes mild (Score:2)
"Inktomi? What's that???"
5 years from now people will be saying "Yahoo!? What's that???"
Re:The crowd goes mild (Score:2)
Therefore, nobody other than geeks are likely to have heard of them in the first place.
Yahoo has money? (Score:2)
Where the hell did Yahoo come up with $235 million in cash?
Re:Yahoo has money? (Score:2)
http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/y/yhoo_qb.html
Re:Yahoo has money? (Score:3, Informative)
$319,319,000 Cash and Cash Equivalents
$936,534,000 Total Current Assets
$276,035,000 Accounts Payable
$420,386,000 Total Current Liabilities
Re:Yahoo has money? (Score:2)
You are joking right? I don't even care to provide you info, like Yahoo floats on $$$ cash for years.
Even their worst times, they had $2 billion in hand.
No biggie for Google. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No biggie for Google. (Score:2)
Well, you may just live long enough to make that decision.
Google would be wise to wait this out and see how sponsored and messy Yahoo's searches are. If their page hit go up because of that, why not go fee-based? Because...
The majority of internet users, though, want their access fee to "pay" for all content. I'm a fan of this, personally. I'd pay an extra $10 a month for a basket of web sites that are otherwise a bit more expensive on the pay-per-use side (Google + Salon + ?).
Until then, Google wouldn't dare give up casual browsers to Yahoo's (or anyone's) potentially junky search. Most surfers don't know the difference; they go with whomever was on "on the funny commercial on the TV" = Yahoooooooo
mug
Does this mean the return of cache engines?? (Score:1)
Content Distribution (Score:2)
Re:Content Distribution (Score:2)
I think we've found a loser...
The reason they bought Inktomi (Score:4, Informative)
Inktomi sells inclusion [inktomi.com] in their results to paying customers. Many results that you normally click on in MSN or other Inktomi distribution partners cost money to the advertiser (about 10 cents each click and up).
To be fair to Inktomi, while they charge for inclusion, your site is still ranked for relevance, so there is no guarantee that your paid links will filter to the top of a search. This is all a Cost-per-Click (CPC) model, or a one time fee for inclusion over a set period of time.
How does this affect Google?
Remember that Google makes their money from search distribution and their sponsored listings. In the short term, it hurts Google a little bit, because they won't be getting paid from Yahoo for that distribution, if Yahoo decides not to use Google in the future. In the long term it does not matter much, because Google's long term revenue model/strategy is the Sponsored Listings (which are being shown at AOL and a variety of their partners [google.com]), which Yahoo was not displaying at all. So even if Yahoo were sending 1 billion searches over to Google, none of those are monetized at all.
How will this affect Yahoo?
Over the long term, Yahoo will make more money from this deal, than by using Google's results, because many of the clickthrough's in their standard search (again.. if they use Inktomi instead of Google for that), will provide some CPC revenue for them. They basically want to monetize the standard search results, and the Inktomi acquisition will help them to do that.
Continuing the pattern (Score:3, Interesting)
Teoma [teoma.com] bought by Ask Jeeves ($4M).
Wisenut [wisenut.com] bought by Looksmart ($9M).
Inktomi [inktomi.com] bought by Yahoo ($235M).
Ask Jeeves realized its search technology didn't work, and bought Teoma. Looksmart, now a "search placement" provider, realized no one would look at its commercial listings if they didn't give users some non-commercial search content as well. Yahoo seems to have come to the same conclusion, after farming out to google, etc. If they want to make revenue, they seem to have realized that they have to invest in some original technology.
Uhhh.... verity just bought Inktomi. (Score:2)
psxndc
Re:Uhhh.... verity just bought Inktomi. (Score:2)
How much traffic? (Score:2)
Hunh! (Score:2, Funny)
History ... (Score:3, Interesting)
was validating Networks of Workstations
in a commercial context. Remember, at the
time they started, the chief competition
was (DEC-era) AltaVista, which used
the search engine as an example application
for multi-way SMP boxes. Today, you don't
see >2-way SMP used in massive deployments
of applications that are easy to parallelize,
but back when Inktomi started NoW's were novel.
not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Froogle vs. shopping.yahoo.com (Score:2)
In short, Froogle blows (Score:2)
Does anyone know what the founders are doing? (Score:2)
Re:No Inktomi search engine (Score:1)
Re:No Inktomi search engine (Score:1, Informative)
In fact, just the opposite is true - Inktomi is divesting themselves of virtually everything but their web search business. And perhaps now we see why: so Yahoo could get them without the extra crap they didn't want.
MOD PARENT DOWN -1 Overrated (Score:4, Informative)
What was sold was the enterprise search software tool, not the general search engine database.
Re:If only ./ would use google... (Score:2)
Am I dreaming? Hasn't Slashdot used Google on occassion? Perhaps when its in-house engine was experiencing trouble?
Re:If only ./ would use google... (Score:2)
Re:Pah (Score:2)
Google will definately see the hits drop. Yahoo is one of the largest search engines and portal systems out there. However with new features like the Froogle engine coming out Google will be on solid foundation.
Reference Links:
froogle.google.com [google.com] - Search most online shopping cart systems
google.com [google.com] - Expansive search engine and web archive
yahoo.com [yahoo.com] - A site that began as a search engine based on human rating, now is a megaportal for all things internet.
Re:Pah (Score:2)
Re:This might not have the impact we think. (Score:2)
What's left for Yahoo! to get is Inktomi's Internet products, including the search engine itself, the brand image and domain name that comes with it, and the ad placement structure that Inktomi had arranged.
The search engine doesn't seem of particular value to Yahoo since they already have Google for that, but they do get Inktomi's already running pay-for-search-results program that they can use all of the the Yahoo universe now.
Re:Great News for me (Score:2)